You may not like the subtrope/supertrope distinction, Pall Mall, but we have it for a reason. And that reason is that when a general trope is used repeatedly in a specific variation, that variation becomes a trope in and of itself. You aren't going to do away with it. We aren't going to ignore it in specific cases where it applies because you don't like it in general.

To carry your argument to its logical end, we don't need any of the multiple tropes we have for "This Plan Won't Work" — we should just have "Bad Plan" because they're all just variations on that.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

When did I say I am against all subtropes? I am fairly certain I made my stance clear on when and when not to make them. Additionally, see Ridiculously Similar Trope for why making every variation of every trope its own article is not a good idea.

While I wouldn't mind taking a vote myself, tyranny of the majority and all that, I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate when it comes to resolving general policy matters like when it's appropriate to use subtropes.

Step Three: Profit isn't a subtrope of Didn't Think This Through. It could very well be that they did think it through, but it just doesn't follow conventional logic. Or they could very well be aware of it, and trying to solve it. There's no flaw in the plan, it's a gap. Didn't Think This Through is a complete plan. There's certainly an overlap, but there are also cases that only fit one of the tropes, for either trope.

I personally dislike Missing Steps Gag because it's ambiguous. It could just as easily refer to the comedy gag of a person walking out a door and falling because there are no stairs outside where they are expected.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

If I can interject, I prefer just leaving this trope as it is, particularly it's name. It's name may be a meme but that's actually a good thing, it increases the trope page's exposure, and really, it's more fun that way.

If my interpretation of it is correct, this trope can be either comedic or dramatic, it doesn't matter which, just that the plan of whoever has 3 things:

1. A goal.
2. A plan to achieve it.
3. On it's own the stated plan would not accomplish the goal.

That's it, it's no more complicated than that. If say, a villain states that his goal is world domination and says that to accomplish this he will kill the hero, without explaination as to WHY killing the hero would suddenly have the entire world at the villain's fingertips, then that's Step Three: Profit. In actuality the villain might HAVE a second step, but if it is never explained what this step is, then it's still Step Three: Profit.

Vote up names you like, vote down names you don't. Whether or not the title will actually be changed is determined with a different kind of crowner (the Single Proposition crowner). This one just collects and ranks alternative titles.

Community

Tropes HQ

TVTropes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org. Privacy Policy